KnightsFan

I think this is great news. The more we can do with generic devices like smartphones that can run 3rd party software, the more creative options open up to us. Some purists are married to using large sensors to get "real" depth of field control, but I say that once it can be simulated to the point of not being able to tell the difference, we'll all be free to use smaller, lighter gear with fewer expensive accessories. Will this camera be indistinguishable from a full frame camera with a 50mm f1.4? Probably not--but it's getting excitingly close!
I'm not an Apple user as I don't like their closed ecosystem, but good for them for pushing a little farther into pro imaging quality with iphones.
 
Yeah since apparently it's physically impossible to make a ProRes encoder that is smaller than a Ninja V.

I think this is great news. The more we can do with generic devices like smartphones that can run 3rd party software, the more creative options open up to us. Some purists are married to using large sensors to get "real" depth of field control, but I say that once it can be simulated to the point of not being able to tell the difference, we'll all be free to use smaller, lighter gear with fewer expensive accessories. Will this camera be indistinguishable from a full frame camera with a 50mm f1.4? Probably not--but it's getting excitingly close!
I'm not an Apple user as I don't like their closed ecosystem, but good for them for pushing a little farther into pro imaging quality with iphones.
 
Yeah since apparently it's physically impossible to make a ProRes encoder that is smaller than a Ninja V.

But what you're saying in this topic is that you'd like a 3rd party to make an HDMI recorder, putting you in their hands for recording format instead of the camera's. Unless you're envisioning the external recorder space getting large enough that there is legitimate competition with a variety of different options. Why not wish for camera companies to allow for more flexibility in choosing codec, and higher quality instead of adding a whole extra layer of compatibility, accessories, and specs.
Remember when Panasonic added 10 bit to the G9 years later via firmware? Remember when hackers added compressed raw recording to the 5D3? Or when Blackmagic made a pocket camera that shot ProRes and Raw at a fraction of the price of contemporary DSLR's, without fans and heatsinks? My sarcasm in this topic is because, in my opinion, wishing for small external recorders is a roundabout solution that would also encourage the implementation of bad internal video. I'd rather pay $100 for firmware that unlocks pro video formats, than $600 + batteries for a recorder even if it's the size of a battery grip.
This is the exact reason I hope for the Octopus cinema camera to turn into a real product, or why I'd like to see cameras running vanilla android or Linux OS's. Getting on my soap box here, but the migration away from standardized computers (both hardware and software) to dozens of different devices running proprietary firmwares is a harmful trend.

But what you're saying in this topic is that you'd like a 3rd party to make an HDMI recorder, putting you in their hands for recording format instead of the camera's. Unless you're envisioning the external recorder space getting large enough that there is legitimate competition with a variety of different options. Why not wish for camera companies to allow for more flexibility in choosing codec, and higher quality instead of adding a whole extra layer of compatibility, accessories, and specs.
Remember when Panasonic added 10 bit to the G9 years later via firmware? Remember when hackers added compressed raw recording to the 5D3? Or when Blackmagic made a pocket camera that shot ProRes and Raw at a fraction of the price of contemporary DSLR's, without fans and heatsinks? My sarcasm in this topic is because, in my opinion, wishing for small external recorders is a roundabout solution that would also encourage the implementation of bad internal video. I'd rather pay $100 for firmware that unlocks pro video formats, than $600 + batteries for a recorder even if it's the size of a battery grip.
This is the exact reason I hope for the Octopus cinema camera to turn into a real product, or why I'd like to see cameras running vanilla android or Linux OS's. Getting on my soap box here, but the migration away from standardized computers (both hardware and software) to dozens of different devices running proprietary firmwares is a harmful trend.

I agree with you - I'd love to see all the camera manufacturers implement better internal codecs.  and by better, I mean:
Scalable compressed internal RAW (best) Prores internal Scalable uncompressed internal RAW Unscalable uncompressed internal RAW High-bitrate low-processed high-quality h264/5 High-bitrate low-processed typical-quality h264/5 Whatever h264/5 implementation the marketing department thought was good What I mean by "scalable" RAW is the ability to read the whole sensor, downscale in-camera, and write that in a RAW format to the card.  I believe the P6K can do this?  It's how you can get different resolution RAW files with the same crop factor.
Unfortunately, most cameras are "7" on the above scale, with only a few exceptions here and there, and those are often very compromised in other ways.  Effectively, an external Prores recorder upgrades all the "7" cameras into "2" cameras.  
Cameras are always a compromise, some have this function but not that function, others are the other way around, etc.  I'm looking to eliminate one of those variables.

FWIW, I was shooting 8-bit for years on Sony's and Canons and when finally upgraded to a FS7 and R6, the difference for both S-log3 and Clog/Clog3 was night & day. The latitude, the colours.. it all gets enhanced and doesn't break anymore. This has allowed me to up my grading skills in Davinci by being able not just to push things harder but go deeper using qualifiers and more advanced techniques.
To be honest, I don't even lust for RAW anymore and the associated storage headaches that go along with it. Chunky bitrate 10-bit can go a long way. And with the M1 Macs it's now a breeze to edit. I really hope Sony gives us a 10-bit option in A7 IV and other upcoming Alpha models. 8-bit is a thing of the past as far as I'm concerned and I've let go of all my 8-bit cameras..

I did do a quick test. My process was to film a white wall as a 4k Raw clip, which I processed into a 4:2:2 10 bit uncompressed file. I then used ffmpeg to process the uncompressed video into two different clips with the only difference being the bit depth. I used 420 color and crf 16 on both. The two files both ended up roughly the same size. (8 bit is 3,515 KB, 10 bit is 3,127 KB).
I applied a fairly extreme amount of gain, and white balance adjustment equally to all clips. I've included a 100% crop of the uncompressed, 10 bit, and 8 bit files. As you can see, the 8 bit has significantly more ugly banding than the 10 bit.
As you can see, the 8 bit has some nasty banding that is not present in the 10 bit version. This is of course an extreme example to show a relatively small difference, but also it does get perceptually worse in motion rather than still frames. Also note that the PNG files themselves are 8 bit (which would match a typical delivery). The banding you see is from the color grading, as all 3 versions have been quantized down to 8 bit upon rendering.
Moreover, the 10 bit is actually a 10% smaller file. I find 10 bit HEVC is consistently a smaller file size than 8 bit for better quality. The real benefit of more accurate sampling is that it allows more accurate processing throughout, from compression to coloring.
On an related note, both the HEVC clips have lost all the grain and detail compared to uncompressed, which is very unfortunate. However, they are 1% of the file size so I can't complain too much!



 
 
Edit: just look at the file names to see which pic is which

No, I'm not interested in cameras that can't shoot the format I want internally.
You won't find measurable differences in quality or usability between ProRes and H264 All-I at the same bitrate, so there are plenty of smaller, cheaper cameras that hit your criteria for a decent codec internally.

There's a picture on the Newsshooter article
 
Well, can't say it's in my budget range, but it's a nice look into where sensor tech is going. 8k120 means they're reading all ~36mp in just 8ms--is this a glimpse at the end of jello cam?
RF is an interesting mount choice for an A-cam in cinema. I'm not opposed per se. I think we should move away from massive, heavy, manual-only lenses, but in order to be an effective replacement it's necessary to have features to leverage lens' builtin AF motors. It should be like having a builtin wireless FF motor inside each lens, with all the features you'd expect from a pro FF kit.

I am puzzled why its not an interchangeable mount. Would a big production want to deal with an RF mount on their A cam? Will they release a RED ranger style version with a PL mount option?

The rolling shutter halved when CineD switched from 12k to 8k. My guess is they are using a lower bit depth readout for sub-12k, which allows them to get higher frame rates in those lower resolutions.

I'll be "that guy" and point out CD's DR comparison actually shows the 12k slightly ahead of the 4.6k. In Braw, they measured 12.1 stops on the 4.6k G2 scaled to UHD. Downscaling the 12k to 4k gave a SNR to 12.4 stops, with a note that there is more data under the noise floor than the 4.6k has. I'd argue that the 4k-normalized number is better for comparison, because if you're looking to maximize SNR in 12k than obviously the 4.6k won't even compare.
Worth noting though, they showed that the 12k only does that well shooting in 12k and downscaling in post. Shooting 4k in camera produced only 11.3 stops.

@newfoundmass USB audio is an existing standard which, if implemented in cameras, would let people use USB mics, but more importantly they could use mixers and completely bypass camera preamps and ADCs. And it would open up to a whole range of audio devices, like MixPre's, Zooms, or even desktop mixers from Behringer, Tascam, FocusRite, etc. That would streamline a lot of types of shoots.

Awesome step in the right direction.
To me, camera companies are both archaic and stupid the way they treat audio.  Syncing audio in post is a critical function (audio sync issues are completely intolerable) and yet the camera companies have done nothing, literally zero, to try and take market share from the external audio market, despite the fact they have the advantage of being able to sync to the image.
To give an idea about the ridiculous state of in-camera audio, here's what I would like:
the TRS (stereo) for the mic should be a TRRS and record three channels of audio a combination hot-shoe / top handle or "battery grip" style add-on with XLRs and high-end low-noise pre-amps every channel should be low-noise pre-amps at least one channel should offer a virtual safety channel, where the single audio input is split to two channels - one gets digitised at that level and the other gets a 20dB attenuation and then is digitised The way it stands, you can't record two mics with one of them having a safety channel, you can't record a stereo signal as well as a mono signal, and on most hybrid cameras the audio is so poor you can't even use a non-powered mic.
Almost every hybrid camera has stereo internal mics and a stereo mic input, and yet they can't record all 4 channels at once, the internal mics are often useless (recording digital interference or recording the lens focusing mechanism etc).
Audio is significantly more important than image, and yet camera companies basically go "we're not going to use audio pre-amps that cost $80c more - instead we'll make the customer spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars to buy external audio interfaces / recorders and spend time in post syncing the audio on every project".
It's like they don't even know what "integration" means.

I read TEAC's announcement as well. So far it looks like only two Canon models will support this interface. This has been one of my long running Canon pet peeves; they provided no way to get XLR audio into their non cinema bodies and is one of my favorite features of the S5.
https://www.teac.co.jp/int/support/news/6615
What would be great is if 32bit float audio was included in the TEAC accessory but I guess I can't have everything. This accessory though is an important first step to me ever considering getting a Canon mirrorless for video and was one of the main reasons I chose the S5 over the R5.  The fact that only the as yet released R3 will even support this accessory further proves to me that I made the right decision in not getting or considering the R5. If the R3 offers dual slot video recording I may actually be truly interested in it.

https://www.fujirumors.com/teac-announces-development-of-tascam-xlr-audio-adapter-for-fujifilm-mirrorless-cameras/

Anyone was aware that some Fujifilm models had a hotshoe with a digital interface?

@Andrew Reid
If you keep a list of things to poke camera manufacturers about, add 32bit float audio to the lineup. IMO it would be a paradigm shift in “scratch” and on-camera audio to include even a decent float system. Heck, a simplicity-first company like Blackmagic Design could do away with audio controls in float mode entirely, opting only for a headphone volume control (or even auto level monitoring).
I use a 32bit float recorder at work all the time, and I literally don’t have to think about its operation beyond power-up, verification of the mic signal, and hitting the record button.

I recently had the opportunity to ask Yosuke Yamane-san, Director of Panasonic's Imaging Division some questions about the current and future Panasonic line-up, including the upcoming GH6 and how Panasonic can continue to build on the success of the S1, S5 and S1H with new video features.
Read the interview here:
https://www.eoshd.com/news/an-eoshd-interview-with-yosuke-yamane-are-panasonic-working-on-an-l-mount-cinema-camera/

Without revenue, there will be no reviewers who test enough different models to have a meaningful opinion. The best, most unbiased reviewer in the world can't provide a meaningful opinion on the Z6 vs. S5 unless they've tested both.
 
Professional reviewers are invaluable due to their experience with many different models. I understand the dislike for people who spend more time reviewing than using gear (see the Gerald Undone topic), but there isn't enough time in a day to both review every camera and lens released, and also have a career as a videographer. No one should listen to only one source before buying. I'd always recommend both general comparisons by pro reviewers who have an overview of everything out there, and specific reviews from pros or enthusiasts who have used a given model regularly for real work but have only owned a half dozen cameras.
I'm not defending all of the practices of paid reviewers/shills/influencers. I'm just saying that reviewers who have actually used every camera out there are very useful, and that no one will be able to do that without it being a near-full time job with a revenue model.

Without revenue, there will be no reviewers who test enough different models to have a meaningful opinion. The best, most unbiased reviewer in the world can't provide a meaningful opinion on the Z6 vs. S5 unless they've tested both.
 
Professional reviewers are invaluable due to their experience with many different models. I understand the dislike for people who spend more time reviewing than using gear (see the Gerald Undone topic), but there isn't enough time in a day to both review every camera and lens released, and also have a career as a videographer. No one should listen to only one source before buying. I'd always recommend both general comparisons by pro reviewers who have an overview of everything out there, and specific reviews from pros or enthusiasts who have used a given model regularly for real work but have only owned a half dozen cameras.
I'm not defending all of the practices of paid reviewers/shills/influencers. I'm just saying that reviewers who have actually used every camera out there are very useful, and that no one will be able to do that without it being a near-full time job with a revenue model.

Still not as good as Panasonic S1 though
Why even think of getting Z Fc for $1000 when you can go on eBay for an S1 at $350 more?

My first thought when reading the announcement was, "if Fuji didn't exist this would be right up there with the (terrible) APS-C offerings from Sony and even Canon."
I think if it were cheaper it would sort of make sense, but $1k is way too high when the XT-3 is not much more. Same with the Z6, but compared with the S1 and S5. And the problem with a direct Z50 clone but in fashionable colors is that it doesn't appeal to anyone with price or quality, who wasn't already interested in the Z50. A higher or lower quality/price bracket would have been more exciting.
But you're right, maybe the weekend photographer crowd who doesn't shoot video will buy it up. I hope it works out for Nikon, I'd love to see a serious, higher spec camera from them either in APS-C or FF, and if this is the way to get funds, then good for them. Overall though I am not optimistic about this or Nikon's other releases.

What’s with all the hate, it’s an alternate-looking Z50, and last I checked the Z50 was pretty well reviewed. Granted, I doubt I’ll sell my S1 for it, but hell, isn’t Nikon days away from bankruptcy? They’re trying out something that the masses might actually buy, I get it. Has phase detection, un-cropped 4K, it’s no worse off than one of the Sony APS-C’s.

It is funny to watch channels reviewing gear, when their main use case is making the review videos. I think Linus Tech Tips is the best example, where they have entire videos about building workstations to edit their videos about building workstations. Credit where it's due, it's not a bad business model, and in Linus' case they're open and honest about it.
Actually I'd say the same about Gerald, who has said in a few videos that his primary use for his gear is sit-down corporate interviews. He's said in a couple places that he's not a "cinematographer" or a "vlogger." I think the guy does a good job presenting information. If I want basic information about a camera or mic he's reviewed, I usually watch his video. I wouldn't try to get any artistic ideas from his videos.
I think that's where you should position yourself with your channel, Andrew. I've always liked/agreed with your opinions on color. I think you're at your best when talking about artistic use cases and reviewing gear from that perspective. We don't need you to compete with tech gear reviewers, just talk about what you're good at.

I actually have to agree with Andrew 90% of the way (I'll explain my other 10% in a bit, below).
To start with, what I love about EOSHD is Andrew's honesty. He writes his reviews from a real-world perspective, and if he hurts anyone's feelings by telling the truth so be it (and btw, if camera manufacturers were smarter, they would pay attention to Andrew and actually provide interviews and honest respondes which would gain the favoritism of people like me).
I run my blog and social media accounts in a similar way and it's clear that being honest is not a good attention-grabber for advertisers who want you to only talk about the great things their products offer and sweep under the carpet the bad things.
I also greatly appreciate that at EOSHD I get the opinion from someone who actually uses gear to do real-world stuff. More often than once you buy stuff which sounds great on paper but when you try it it simply sucks for whatever reason (usability, quality, durability, expandability, simplicity, etc). And the problem (for advertisers and manufacturers) is that the truth is that most of the time you don't need all the bells and whistles and attention-grabbing features they advertise, they are designed to make you upgrade your gear and spend more cash.
Having said all that however (here comes the 10%) I think we need those guys who buy gear every year (and thus, also the paid bloggers and youtubers) as they provide the necessary financial incentives for these companies to continue adding features and competing in the market on a continuous basis. If that had not been the case we'd still be using cameras with technologies from 10 years ago with FullHD sensors and no image stabilization.
So bottom line, I think there's space for both sides. We need the B.S. celebrities in order to buy stuff, so that every few years the artistic community can upgrade to truly better equipment that could make a difference in their work.